HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Gromet, M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gromet, M.

Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection to Double Reading of Screening Mammograms: Review of 231,221 Mammograms

¹ Breast Imaging Section, Charlotte Radiology, P.A., 1701 East Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28203.

OBJECTIVE. This study compares the efficacy of single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) to double reading and also to the first reader (without CAD) in a double-reading program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A review was performed of 231,221 screening mammograms interpreted by experienced mammographers from 2001 through 2005 in a community-based mammography program. In 112,413 (48.6%), mammographers performed the first of two readings. In 118,808 (51.4%), they performed a single reading aided by CAD.

RESULTS. For double reading, the first reader's recall rate was 10.2%; sensitivity, 81.4%; positive predictive value, as a percentage of positive screening mammograms resulting in a tissue diagnosis of cancer within 1 year (PPV₁), 4.1%; and cancer detection rate, 4.12 per 1,000. After the double-reading process, the final recall rate was 11.9%; sensitivity, 88.0%; PPV₁, 3.7%; and cancer detection rate, 4.46 per 1,000. For single-reading with CAD, the recall rate was 10.6%; sensitivity, 90.4%; PPV₁, 3.9%; and cancer detection rate, 4.20 per 1,000. Statistically significant results included a lower recall rate with CAD compared with double reading (10.6% vs 11.9%, respectively; p < 0.0001); increased sensitivity with CAD compared with the first reader (90.4% vs 81.4%, p < 0.0001); and increased recall rate with CAD compared with the first reader (10.6% vs 10.2%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION. Double reading increased sensitivity with a modest increase in the recall rate compared with single reading. Single reading with CAD, compared with double reading, resulted in a small, but not statistically significant, increase in sensitivity with a lower recall rate. Our results indicate that CAD enhances performance of a single reader, yielding increased sensitivity with only a small increase in recall rate.

Keywords: breast cancer • computer-aided detection • CAD • double reading • mammography • screening mammography